A Short outline of Charles Taylor's: The Malaise of Modernity

This is
simply an outline of Taylor’s basic argument in this short work written by
Charles Taylor. The idea of this outline is to help the reader understand the book
by providing a simple outline of the basic argument that Taylor is presenting
here. The book, which is essentially the manuscript is the fruit of a series of
presentations that Taylor made at the Massey Conferences which are hosted by
Massey College and Radio-Canada, is divided into 10 chapters. In the first
chapter Taylor essentially proposes three causes (recognizing that there may be
more) of the Malaise of Modernity: (1) Individualism or the Loss of Sense, (2)
The Primacy of Instrumental Reason or the Loss of Ends, and (3) The effect on
society and politics in general of the loss of sense to an inauthentic
individualism and the domination of instrumental reason, or, the loss of true
freedom. Taylor considers the first Malaise in chapters 2 to 8, the second in
chapter 9, and the third in chapter 10.

In
considering the first malaise Taylor proposes that modern Individualism is
based upon (or rooted in) the principle of self-fulfillment,[2]
and the moral ideal of Authenticity.[3]
The culture of Authenticity, which is a fruit of Modern thought, is obscured by
the predominant notion of (the modern cry for) a Freedom of Neutrality,[4]
Moral Subjectivism,[5]
and Explanations that are based upon the observations of the Social Sciences.[6]
Taylor thinks that the culture of Authenticity is a good thing, that needs to
be preserved; But, that it must be properly understood. He proposes, therefore,
to defend the culture of authenticity by proposing and defending three theses:
(1) Authenticity is a valuable ideal, (2) We can rationally discuss Ideals—including
the ideal of Authenticity, and (3) that these discussions can produce real, tangible,
fruit.[7]
Taylor discusses and defends the first thesis primarily in the third chapter
(though he comes back to it frequently, and discusses it again in chapter 7),
the second thesis in chapters 4-7 and the third thesis in chapter 8.

We might
summarize Taylor’s overall argument as follows: The culture of authenticity
must, if it is to survive and not self-destruct (into
Narcissism), avoid the notion of
self-determining freedom that is constantly pursuing freedom from the influence
of others (including tradition, society, and all those that surround a person during
their lives). Indeed, argues Taylor, some sort of “Horizon” is necessary in order
for me to define myself, and, therefore, to be authentic to myself. A Horizon is essentially a foundation for
meaning that is based in some community and social dialogue. Without this
horizon, argues Taylor, there can be no self, nor can there be any
authenticity. A culture of Authenticity must also not reject that which
transcends itself, for that which transcends the self is necessary for defining
oneself, as is dialogue with others. It must reject a subjectivism of content, but maintain a subjectivism of manner. Taylor seems to be arguing that
there is a transcendent, but how we approach it will be different depending on
the horizon upon which we define ourselves.[8]
The method or manner of interacting with the transcendent will be different for
each person, based upon their horizon; But, there is some entity that
transcends us all and which has a signification which is its own, independent
of how we interpret it or approach it.[9]
To reject the transcendent is to condemn ourselves to futility and the
impossibility of ever defining ourselves or ever being authentic.[10]
As such, any philosophy that rejects the transcendent, but seeks to maintain a
culture of authenticity is, necessarily, self-stultifying.

Taylor is
evidently influenced by the greatest theologians of Modern and Contemporary Philosophy,
including Martin Heidegger (whose language Taylor seems to be borrowing
throughout this work), G. W. F. Hegel, and the main thinkers of their schools
of thought. Aside from these thinkers he also interacts, in this short work,
with Aristotle, Friedrich Nietzsche, Max Weber, René Descartes, Immanuel Kant,
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Allan Bloom, Herder, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Peter
Berger, Karl Marx, John Locke, Alasdaire MacIntyre, Alexis de Tocqueville, and
numerous others.

[1]This
book was originally published in English under the title “The Malaise of
Modernity”. I, however, read
the French translation which is called “Grandeur et misère de la modernité”
(Charles Taylor, Grandeur et misère de la
modernité, trad. Charlotte Melançon (Montréal : Éditions
Bellarmin, 1992).). The title of the French translation is taken from a line in
the last paragraph of the book in which Taylor paraphrases a quote from Pascal
concerning the state of the human race (Ibid., 150). All references in this
short analysis are to the French translation.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Leisure:
The Basis of Culture & the Philosophical Act.
Josef Pieper. Translated by Alexander Dru. 1963. Reprint, Ignatius Press, 2009.
143 pp. $12.99. ISBN 978-1-58617-256-5. This
book is composed of two articles written by the German philosopher Josef
Pieper. Though the two articles are intimately connected, they form two
distinct works; as such, this book review will begin by giving a brief introduction
to the works in question, followed by and exposition of each of the works
individually. The two articles that are included in this book, Leisure: the Basis of Culture and The Philosophical Act, were both
published in 1947, and, as such, were written during the cultural crisis in
Germany that followed the Second World War. Not only did Pieper have the
cultural crisis in mind when he wrote these articles, but he was also writing
in light of the works of the most well-known German philosopher of the time –
Martin Heidegger. As such, any reader who is familiar with Heidegg…

Immanuel Kant, presented with the extreme empiricism of Hume and the
extreme rationalism of Liebniz, which he discovered through the writings Wolff,
sought to take a middle road between these two extreme philosophical positions.
I would submit that Kant’s synthesis of these two views leads to an agnosticism
about what Kant called “the thing-in-itself”, and ultimately to the
philosophical positions known as Atheism, determinism, and nihilism.

Kant’s Sources First of all, Kant was influenced by Hume’s empiricism and Newton’s
physics. He saw that the physical sciences, in contrast to rationalistic
metaphysics, were actually making advances. They were making discoveries, and
building a system of knowledge that accurately described the world of our sense
perceptions. Rationalistic metaphysics, on the other hand, was floundering
amidst the combating systems that the philosophers were erecting. It did not
provide new knowledge, and only led to unacceptable conclusions, such as the
Absolute Mon…